JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant as well as Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, the records reveal that the respondent had instituted TS 78/2014, which is pending in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, claiming to be the landlord by virtue of a tenancy agreement, and praying for recovery of khas possession by evicting the petitioner, recovery of arrear rent and future compensation, etc. The petitioner filed his written statement-cum-counter claim, inter-alia, claiming that the tenanted premises was returned to the respondent and further claiming to be the occupier of a part of annual patta land, which is standing in the name of one Tuleswar Gogoi, claiming to have constructed the shop premises thereon, claiming refund of Rs. 77,000/- with 12% interest, etc. The respondent filed his written statement to the counter-claim. 3. Thereafter, the respondent filed two separate petitions under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, which were numbered as petition No. 1941/16 and 1942/16, one for amending the plaint and one for amending the written statement against the counter-claim. The petitioner filed his written objection against both the said amendment applications. The learned trial court by order dated 21.09.2016, by relying on the case of (i) Puran Ram v. Bhaguram, (2008) 4 SCC 102 , and (ii) Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , allowed the proposed amendment by holding that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. The present application is filed to challenge the said order. 4. In the meantime, the respondent had filed the amended plaint and amended written statement to the counter-claim and the learned trial court, without giving any opportunity to file additional written statement and counter-claim, fixed the suit for issues and documents by order dated 17.11.2016. This order has also been challenged in the present application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of Puran Ram (supra) was misread and misconstrued by the learned trial court. This order has also been challenged in the present application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of Puran Ram (supra) was misread and misconstrued by the learned trial court. It is further submitted that the nature and character of the suit had changed by allowing the amendment of the plaint and the case has now changed from a suit claiming eviction from another plot of land, distinct and different from the original suit land and, as such, the amendment would introduce a totally different suit, unconnected with previous plaint. It is also submitted that even the story-line of the plaint has now undergone a change. It is also submitted that the suit was not for rectification of tenancy agreement and therefore, without amending tenancy agreement, the amendment could not have been allowed because after amendment of schedule of suit land, the suit land has no bearing with the land described in the original plaint or land and premises covered by the tenancy agreement. It is also submitted that in order to frustrate the defence, the plaint was amended. It is further submitted that under the provisions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886, the annual patta land cannot be transferred and, as such, the learned trial court ought not to have allowed the amendment, which would have the effect of recognizing the respondent as the land-owner in lieu of the original annual patta holder, which is contrary to the law in this regard. Owing to the above reasons, it is submitted that the prayer for amendment was neither bona fide, nor the same was in the interest of justice. It is submitted that the order dated 17.11.2016, by which the petitioner was denied the opportunity to file his counter-statement in form of additional written statement and counter-claim, which cannot be sustained as by the same, the learned trial court has non-suited the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset has submitted that on the question of law involved, he cannot support the order dated 17.11.2016 because after amendment of the plaint was allowed, the petitioner ought to have been given a chance to file his additional written statement or to amend his written statement cum counter-claim. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset has submitted that on the question of law involved, he cannot support the order dated 17.11.2016 because after amendment of the plaint was allowed, the petitioner ought to have been given a chance to file his additional written statement or to amend his written statement cum counter-claim. 7. However, in respect of the order dated 21.09.2016, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the said order. He submits that the said order was not challenged on time, and as the respondent has now filed his amended plaint and amended written statement to the counter-claim, the same amounts to waiver on part of the petitioner and, as such, the present application is not maintainable and the present application is only a step taken on after-thought. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed after due adjudication and, as such, the present revision is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the nature of amendment carried out would show that the respondent had only amended the pleadings and the amendment of the schedule of suit land had occasioned to correctly describe the suit premises, which can be done at any stage, and in appropriate case, such a correction of schedule of suit premises can even be allowed in the stage of execution. It is submitted that there was no amendment of the prayers made in the plaint and, as such, by the amendment of pleadings, the petitioner suffered no prejudice. It was also submitted that notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy agreement, the suit in the present form was maintainable. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this court has also perused the relevant records. The issue which arises for decision in this case is whether the learned trial court has committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment. 9. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of Puran Ram (supra) was misread and misconstrued by the learned trial court. It is seen that the issue involved in the said case was that the plaint in the case contained a prayer under section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking amendment of the agreement and in the said context the said Hon'ble Apex Court had passed the order. It is seen that the issue involved in the said case was that the plaint in the case contained a prayer under section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking amendment of the agreement and in the said context the said Hon'ble Apex Court had passed the order. However, it would be relevant to note that while upholding the order passed by the learned trial court, it had been observed as follows [quoted from 2008 (2) Supreme 166 ]:- "14. We may now take into consideration as to whether the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, which, in the discretion of the trial court, was allowed. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the trial court when the order of the trial court was passed on sound consideration of law and facts and when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary. 15. Before parting with this judgment, we may deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application for amendment could not be allowed inasmuch as the same was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this regard, we may observe that the court may, in its discretion, allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly barred by limitation. This view was also expressed by this Court in Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., [ (2004) 6 SCC 415 ]. In that decision, it was held that there is no absolute rule that in such a case, the amendment should not be allowed and the discretion of the court in that regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and such discretion as to be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof. It was further held in that decision that an amendment, which sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, should be allowed. It was further held in that decision that an amendment, which sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, should be allowed. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that allowing and rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint is really the discretion of the Court and amendment of the plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds. In this connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 . In paragraph 8 of the said decision this Court observed that "since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a mis-description of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises; the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff on the date on which it was originally instituted." A reading of this observation would amply clear the position that no question of limitation shall arise when mis-description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the suit property arose in a particular case. Apart from that in the present case, although, the relief claimed before as well as after the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted herein earlier, we do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the discretion used by the trial court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint." In the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 385 [quoted from 2006(3) Supreme 507 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- 17. Order 6, Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 18. Order 6, Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 18. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. 19. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court. 20. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." 10. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." 10. Thus, on the basis of the ratio of the case of Puran Ram (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra), this court is inclined to hold that the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment. 11. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) the nature and character of the suit had changed by claiming eviction from another plot of land and the suit land has no bearing with the suit premises described in the original plaint and in the tenancy agreement,(ii) that the story-line of the plaint has now undergone a change, (iii) that the annual patta land is not transferable, (iv) the suit was not maintainable without rectification of tenancy agreement, etc. This court is of the view (i) that the merit of the amendment cannot be gone into at this stage without trial, and (ii) that if a new cause of action, as claimed, has been introduced, the respondent could have maintained a separate suit for eviction of the petitioner from another plot of land, therefore, there is no reason for not allowing the amendment as it would result in avoiding multiplicity of the suits, and (iii) in the present case in hand, the trial has not yet begun, hence, there is no absence of due diligence in the present case. In this regard, I find support from the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra). 12. Moreover, this court is required to be mindful of the ratio of the case of the case of Puran Ram (supra), as quoted above, which limits the power of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the trial court has properly exercised its jurisdiction. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 21.09.2016, by which the amendment, as prayer for, was allowed. 13. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 21.09.2016, by which the amendment, as prayer for, was allowed. 13. However, this court is of the un-hesitant view that the order dated 17.11.2016, by which the suit was fixed for issues and documents is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned trial court could not have allowed the suit to proceed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to either file an amended written statement and counter-claim or to file additional written statement. Hence, in this regard, the learned trial court appears to have committed jurisdictional error and, as such, this court is inclined to interfere with the said impugned order dated 17.11.2016 and, as such, the same is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the learned trial court is directed to permit the petitioner-defendant to file his amended and/or additional written statement and counter-claim. 14. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims. Therefore, it is clarified that the petitioner may take any defence on the averments made in the amended plaint and written statement to the counter-claim. Now that the amended plaint and amended written statement to the counter-claim has been brought on record, it is for both parties to contest the suit on merits on the basis of the amended plaint written statement. 15. Resultantly, this application stands partly allowed. The order dated 21.09.2016 is upheld and the order dated 17.11.2016 is set aside. 16. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 07.08.2017, and seek further instructions from the said learned court by producing a certified copy of this order.